. >> i am john crew from the american civil liberties union of california. i will be happy to answer questions. this is an important topic. if we run out of time, i am happy to provide information later. i served as the police practices project director for 15 years. i served on the task force appointed by the police commission to draft san francisco intelligence policies. it is important for you to understand how it came about. it came about because the human rights commission held a similar hearing 20 years ago about similar issues. the board of supervisors endorsed it. the police. attention. they formed a task force that included a self -- myself and top levels of the police reported. we sat down and rewrote the sfpd policies. we are proud of the effort. it has served san francisco well for 20 years. chief casey sat in on the meetings with us. he asked why they were endorsing the changes because it put restrictions on intelligence. he said, we are a local police department. we are not the cia. that is still the case today. we need transparency. we've had

the american civil liberties union says this is not justice. eric holder, attorney general, said the move is necessary. >> reporter: holder pledged to prosecute ksm and four al qaeda co-defendants in a civilian court just blocks from new york's ground zero. but congress bowing to public pressure barred transfers of guantanamo bay prisoners to the u.s. holder did not hide his frustration. >> i know this case in a way that members of congress do not. i have looked at the files. i have spoken to the prosecutors. so do i know better than them? yes. >> reporter: the festering flap over where to try muhammed has angered families of 9/11 victims. geraldine davy has been seeking justice for nearly a decade. >> i owe this to amy. i need justice for my 23-year-old who was slaughtered that day. and we cannot forget them. >> reporter: ksm, the highest-profile al qaeda d detainee at gitmo has admitted planning dozens of plots. and he's one of three alleged terrorists to be water boarded by cia interrogators as justice department revealed that mohammed was wa

spend a fair amount of time in the book talking about how a few move from groups like the american civil liberties union to the clinics and programs in the adjacent areas, you find that a whole lot of overlap. you find cooperation, sometimes the revolving door of highly qualified personnel, you find that the publications and round tables and so forth are constantly informing many of the key academics and vice versa. you have tremendous cooperation. what we actually want that cooperation between the groups that or the ideological opposite numbers at the aclu or would that just make the law school's more polarized and ideological? i have my doubts that they should jump into a cozy relationship with conservative or libertarian think tanks or much less with groups that would have lobbying agenda still would be disastrous, and so, the question is therefore should we tell them stop being the aclu and date of around eight variety of groups. spec why don't you stand up here or stay here to the concluding question. since i didn't know why john who introduced me was needed to mention my service on the u.s. commis

spent a fair bit of time in the book talking about how if you move from groups like the american civil liberty unionto law school clinics and programs in adjacent areas, you find a whole lot of overlap. you find cooperation, you find sometimes a revolving door of highly-qualified personnel, you find that the publications and the round tables and so forth are constantly informing many of the key academics as to what the aclu has been thinking this week and vice versa. you have tremendous cooperation. would we actually want that cooperation between groups that are the ideological opposite numbers of the aclu, or would that just make law schools yet more polarized and more ideological? i have my doubts that they should jump headlong into an equally cozy relationship with conservative or libertarian think tanks or much less with groups that might have lobbying agendas which would really be potentially disastrous. and so the question is, therefore, should we tell them, you know, stop saying the aclu, some dating the aclu four times a month and at least date around to a variety of groups. [laughter] i don

. >> our next speaker is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrants rights project and he was referred to me by jim shepherd -- kim shepherd. i just had the pleasure of meeting him. one of the finest legal minds in the nation. >> with that introduction, i'd better have something to say. [laughter] >> i want to respond to a few points and one that underscores something that amy said and david acknowledged. the impact of the 1996 law. we're seeing the confluence of 9/11 and undocumented immigration, but also the 1996 loss in two critical respects. -- 1996 laws in two critical respects. one is that it did remove an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed in law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law in many ways that are not worth exploiting now but -- not worth explaining now but essentially say that individuals who qualify for legal status are not pursuing it because of the way the law is written, but they i

. >> our next speaker is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrants rights project and he was referred to me by jim shepherd -- kim shepherd. >> i want to respond to a few points and one that underscores something that amy said and david acknowledged. the impact of the 1996 law. we're seeing the confluence of 9/11 and undocumented immigration, but also the 1996 loss in two critical respects. one is that it did remove an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed in law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law in many ways that are not worth exploiting now but essentially say that individuals who qualify for legal status are not pursuing it because of the way the law is written, but they are eligible. it is a mistake for the administration to view this as purely a matter that requires statutory changes. because a lot of the operation of the law, while about to be changed and desperately needs to be, it is amenabl

the next speaker will be lucas who, guess what, is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrants rights project and he was described to me by kim shepherd. i just had the pleasure of meeting him as one of the finest legal minds in the nation. go for it. >> well, with that introduction, i better have something to say. [laughter] >> i think i want to respond to a few points and i want to underscore something that amy said and that david acknowledged which is the impact of the 1996 laws and so what we're seeing today is the confluence not only of 9/11 and of undocumented immigration but also the 1996 laws in two critical respects. there are many, but two critical respects. one is that it did remove an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed in the law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it actually had the perverse consequence in my view of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law in many ways, you know, that aren't worth explaining now but essentially say that individuals who qualify for legal stat

. >> [unintelligible] is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrant rights project. i just had the pleasure of meeting him. one of the finest legal minds in the nation. >> with that introduction, i had better have something to say. i wanted to underscore something that david mentioned and that amy acknowledged. what we are seeing not only is 9/11 based on an undocumented immigration, but i am critical respects, such as item number one, it removed an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed within the law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law. essentially saying that individuals qualify for legal status are not pursuing at because of the way that the law is written. they are, in fact, eligible. in addition to that, in my view it is a mistake for the administration to view this as purely a matter that requires statutory changes. many of the operations of the 1996 law that need to be changed are also amenable